In Brooksbank's case, it's looking like a no, especially since, historically, the royal fam doesn't really do prenups, according to royal expert Katie Nicholl. "I don’t think members of the royal family sign prenuptial agreements," Nicholl told Town & Country earlier in the year. "It’s commonplace with celebrity marriage, but this is not a celebrity marriage, it’s a royal marriage."

Although three of Queen Elizabeth's four children have divorced their spouses, no prenups had been involved. Similarly, to our knowledge, Prince William and Prince Harry also decided against signing prenuptial agreements before their weddings. Plus, Daily Mail previously reported that prenups aren't even legally enforceable in England at the moment.

Royal assets get a bit messy anyway, since most of the royal family's wealth and property are actually owned by the Queen, according to Prince Harry: The Inside Story author Duncan Larcombe. "You wouldn’t need a prenuptial agreement to stop Windsor Castle from being cut in half in the event they divorce," Larcombe revealed to Town & Country. Essentially, if Princess Eugenie and Brooksbank were to end their marriage, the future bride's family fortune would not be divvied up between the two parties since it technically doesn't belong to her in the first place.

But, that doesn't mean the soon-to-be royal bride hasn't accumulated her own personal assets—the 28-year-old is worth an estimated $4.8 million, and The Times believes a large chunk of this comes from a trust fund established by the Queen Mother (Eugenie's great-grandmother).

Speaking of large sums, Eugenie's wedding was originally estimated to cost upwards of $955,000, but increased security measures are further spiking the grand total. Security alone is currently predicted to rack up a $25.4 million bill...at the taxpayer's expense, mind you. We're interested to see exactly where the couple will allocate their steep wedding funds for the big day.